I have been blissfully ignorant of the existence of Andrew Tate (above) until very recently; my life was better before. He is considered a social media influencer, aka “someone with power in the culture without any genuine reason to have it.” Tate was a professional kickboxer who appeared on the British reality show “Big Brother”—which is just as moronic as the American version— and was the source of controversy when his social media posts got him kicked off the show. He began offering paid courses and memberships through his website promoting an “ultra-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle,” as well as sexism and misogyny. Last year, Tate and his brother were arrested in Romania on suspicions of human trafficking. He’s also been charged with rape.
In summary, this creep makes Kim Kardashian seem like Eleanor Roosevelt. But he’s got a buff bod and drives cool cars, so British boys and teens are suckers for his act. In response, British schools, the New York Times tells us, are now spending class time condemning Tate rather than teaching their students math, reading and critical thinking.
“I am sad that I have taken up important curriculum time to talk about Andrew Tate,” Chloe Stanton, an English teacher in East London tells the Times. “But women have to fight enough in society without this type of attitude to deal with.” The Times writes, “Believing that schools are a microcosm of society — and a preview of its future — educators said it was crucial to target Mr. Tate’s influence early. Since last fall, principals have sent letters to parents warning of his reach, and Britain’s education secretary has said that influencers like Mr. Tate could reverse the progress made in countering sexism.”
Chloe Stanton also tells the Times that Tate “is brainwashing a generation of boys, and it’s very frightening. They seem to think he is right. He’s right because he’s rich.” So she agrees with Britain’s education secretary and school principals across the country that teachers have to brainwash the brainwashed boys to reject him.
Wrong. Unethical. I call this “micro-viewpoint indoctrination” because it is far more specific than the typical educational indoctrination in environmental activism, anti-gun perspectives, racial grievances and social justice propaganda. All of these are also unethical, varieties of political and social thought-control that may be less pernicious than what the Hitler Youth were subjected to but equally totalitarian in methodology and principle. However, the anti-Tate brain-washing—good brainwashing, you know—targets a single individual. It is not the proper role of the schools to be pushing particular political, ideological and social agendas, but it is really not the role of the schools to tell students which individuals they should and shouldn’t be listening to, watching and favoring.
Tate is an easy call: he’s unequivocally repugnant…but so was Howard Stern at the peak of his popularity. Andrew Dice Clay. Or, if you prefer, Stokely Carmichael, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Hugh Hefner, Joe McCarthy, Angela Davis, Bernie Sanders, Richard Nixon, Jane Fonda, Timothy Leary, Mick Jagger …or Satan.
The schools and their staff have neither the training, moral standing, skill or intelligence to presume to tell students who they should or shouldn’t pay attention to, emulate or admire. They also don’t have proper authority: parents may lack moral standing, skill or intelligence, but they have something crucial that teachers don’t have: the right to raise their children as they see fit.
Tate may be an easy call, but many teachers in the U.S. think that Donald Trump is just as easy a call: he’s evil, and children must be taught to fear him. Yet Greta Thunberg—speaking of people with completely contrived authority—recently said that criminal acts may be justified, insisting, “If we look through history; if people who were advocating for example for social justice, if they only used the legal methods then we wouldn’t be where we are today.” By all means, school classes at the appropriate level should discuss the ethical issues raised by such “ends justify the means” advocacy. Teaching that Greta Thunberg herself must be rejected, however, crosses the same ethics line that condemning Tate does.
Teachers, woke that most of the ar, would never condemn Thunberg, however—and that alone demonstrates why Great Britain’s anti-Andrew Tate campaign is a dangerous slippery slope. Teachers may be less destructive “influencers” than Tate, but they still can’t be trusted when they engage in indoctrination rather than teaching facts and skills.
7 thoughts on “Britain’s Unethical And Deliberate Micro-Viewpoint Indoctrination In The Schools: It Can Happen Here, And Probably Already Does”
And why not teach those critical thinking skills they are taking class time away from rather than targeting Andrew Tate? If those skills are taught, eventually those boys will realize that fame and money aren’t everything.
Heck, they can start by teaching your rationalization list. That’s a good step in the right direction.
The root of the problem is absent fathers. These boys don’t need women teachers buzzing at them like Harpies. They need responsible, adult males in their lives: a father (just one, please), men teachers, coaches, fathers of friends, uncles, and so forth. If these “educators” (mostly women) weren’t so intent on obviating the need for and value of men in society, the Andrew Tates of the world would have no sway whatsoever. Assholes. Be careful what you wish for, girls.
I would argue that some of this is hardwired into male and female brains. When in history have women not sought the protection and resources of the male species? Even today, women seek partners who are at least their economic equal. You generally won’t find someone like Kate Beckinsdale dating a welder or auto mechanic. The most physically desirable women typically drawn to the wealthier and powerful males. Males tend to desire women who possess the characteristics of “attractiveness” by the social standard because it elevates their status in the group.
When teen girls and young women become less concerned with a potential suitors level of self-confidence and begin to find males who treat them with respect, are diligent in their school-work, and are focused on the future are more attractive than the big man on campus who drives the cool car and has power and influence over others because of his family’s status, then you won’t need teachers to guide young men. Most of a young male’s self-confidence comes from external reinforcers such as female attention, accolades from adults for his sports prowess, and to a lesser respect, parents. Unfortunately, young males who do not have any tempering influences on his level of confidence (kings passes) wind up behaving badly. Andrew Tate is simply one example.
I am not sure if fathers who believe they must teach their boys to be knights in shining armor and protectors of the fairer sex are doing their boys any favors if they still believe that their role is to be provider and protector. Mothers who want their boys to be taught that they are to be providers and protectors should understand that forcing that responsibility onto young men is incongruent with the ideas that their girls are to be independent on their own. Equality among the sexes will occur when society establishes that the roles and responsibilities for either are identical.
“Equality among the sexes will occur when society establishes that the roles and responsibilities for either are identical.”
In other words, never. But oh, what a brave new world that would be!
This does not necessarily mean vandalism or rioting.
Civil disobedience, by definition, involves breaking the law.
It would be an excellent discussion for high school students under what circumstances civil disobedience is ethically justified.
I’ve listen to some of Andrew Tate. He is pretty sexist. The biggest problem is he has made some interesting points about the sexism against boys/men. My biggest concern is what there doing is only going to convince those guys he’s right. They are turning him into a martyr.
I’m sure schools rallying against something will never have the effect of making the forbidden fruit more attractive. It’s not like DARE did anything like that for drugs (special shoutout to every game in the arcade promoting this propaganda when you spent a quarter on it).